I don't think I dislike BIP 110 enough to run something like this. 

If there was a soft fork proposal using a similar activation method but intending to prevent OFAC sanctioned addresses from transacting, I would certainly run `invalidateblock`. 

To me, whoever proposes a change to bitcoin is always the aggressor. Some changes end up being changes that we agree are good and accept (eg. Segwit or Taproot). But my first assumption is that the any change to bitcoin is hostile. Therefore, I think using something like `invalidateblock` or even a change to the PoW algorithm is valid to prevent changes.

Scoresby

, do you support this?  Because it would seem to me that this is the kind of censorship that you're against.  

If the block is valid by the consensus rules it should be treated as valid

bitcoin

URSF-110: A POC using "invalidateblock" to reject BIP110 - @supertestnet

Honest question, @Scoresby, do you support this?  Because it would seem to me that this is the kind of censorship that you're against.  **If the block is valid by the consensus rules it should be treated as valid**, right?